Of course, an inside job by the cia being exposed would be a good thing now to strike a fatal blow to the deep state. Scrap all and rebuild.

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.

This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.

You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.

Proc92 said:

---

If an inside job to justify Mid East military action, why was it not exposed by the Obama admin once he had full control of the three letter agencies? What a way to knee cap his adversaries. He could have pinned that on either bush, Cheney, or the then Republican oriented military industrial complex.

---

Because a plot of this magnitude transcends administrations. Obama clearly wasn't against foreign force. Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin. Actions of the CIA and military don't simply all shift focus at the whims of the administration. The whole republican/democrat sideshow is a distraction.

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

---

Oh, now I see. Great theory.

BUSH: I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Fine, call them "Government Planner 1" and "Government Planner 2" it doesn't matter. Your theory of who, what, and why will never make sense. Ask yourself "why"?

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.

This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.

You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.

---

No, it's not just "conspiracy theorists" talking about MOLTEN steel. You have COUNTLESS first hand reports of molten steel in ground zero from first responders and firefighters. I guess they're all lunatics and nutjobs like Barry Jennings, right?



In order to significantly weaken steel OF THE ENTIRE building, you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot more than crash a plane into one portion of it where most of the jet fuel is burned off externally in the initial fireball. You had people standing in the crash zone, where is this intense heat necessary to compromise every single load bearing structure?

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

Shadowy, devious, people who are super-good at needlessly complicating plans and even better at keeping secrets.

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.

This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.

You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.

---

No, it's not just "conspiracy theorists" talking about MOLTEN steel. You have COUNTLESS first hand reports of molten steel in ground zero from first responders and firefighters. I guess they're all lunatics and nutjobs like Barry Jennings, right?



In order to significantly weaken steel OF THE ENTIRE building, you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot more than crash a plane into one portion of it where most of the jet fuel is burned off externally in the initial fireball. You had people standing in the crash zone, where is this intense heat necessary to compromise every single load bearing structure?

---

This is a classic red herring. Those guys are describing what they saw. Or what they thought they saw. Doesn't really matter. They're not talking about an engineering analysis of what caused the collapse. Those analyses talk about the steel weakening, not melting.

You and I agree that the steel didn't melt….I think.

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

---

If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.

This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.

You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.

---

No, it's not just "conspiracy theorists" talking about MOLTEN steel. You have COUNTLESS first hand reports of molten steel in ground zero from first responders and firefighters. I guess they're all lunatics and nutjobs like Barry Jennings, right?



In order to significantly weaken steel OF THE ENTIRE building, you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot more than crash a plane into one portion of it where most of the jet fuel is burned off externally in the initial fireball. You had people standing in the crash zone, where is this intense heat necessary to compromise every single load bearing structure?

---

This is a classic red herring. Those guys are describing what they saw. Or what they thought they saw. Doesn't really matter. They're not talking about an engineering analysis of what caused the collapse. Those analyses talk about the steel weakening, not melting.

You and I agree that the steel didn't melt….I think.

---

No it is not a red herring. A red herring is misidrection. This is simply showcasing eye witness accounts. They are explicitly detailing what they saw as looking like lava or something out of a foundry. That's not something easily mistaken. We have a heat map of ground zero showing extreme temperatures WEEKS after they fell.

I still haven't seen any convincing evidence for why temperatures were expected to be as high as they were to the point where they could BEND steel at the location of where the impact is, let alone how they would somehow manage to also BEND steel all the way down the building below where they weren't directly impacted by the plane or fires.

I do believe that the steel melted, because that's what would have been necessary for a complete collapse. It wasn't caused by mere fires on the top floors. It was caused by nano thermite. But yes, we agree that the plane impact and ensuing fires alone should not have caused steel to melt.

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

---

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the question. A few follow ups - how many people would you estimate would need to be involved in something like this? Why wouldn't they do something much simpler like bombing a building vs bringing planes into the equation? Why wouldn't someone like Trump, who hates the so called deep state, etc expose it when he would clearly have that information available to him?

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

---

If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.

---

As I said, once a plane is in the air, it is easy to control direction and altitude. I've flown. You haven't and you don't know what you are talking about. Thousands of hours of training goes into thousands of scenarios that having nothing to do with controlling direction and altitude. That part is easy. So much so that you can give someone with no training controls once a plane is at altitude and with a short explanation they can turn the plane, steady on a heading, and control the altitude. It is far simpler than secretly wiring a building for demolition.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

---

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the question. A few follow ups - how many people would you estimate would need to be involved in something like this? Why wouldn't they do something much simpler like bombing a building vs bringing planes into the equation? Why wouldn't someone like Trump, who hates the so called deep state, etc expose it when he would clearly have that information available to him?

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

---

If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.

---

As I said, once a plane is in the air, it is easy to control direction and altitude. I've flown. You haven't and you don't know what you are talking about. Thousands of hours of training goes into thousands of scenarios that having nothing to do with controlling direction and altitude. That part is easy. So much so that you can give someone with no training controls once a plane is at altitude and with a short explanation they can turn the plane, steady on a heading, and control the altitude. It is far simpler than secretly wiring a building for demolition.

---

I have flown. It is not as easy as you claim to navigate precisely into a building a far distance away if you only have very basic training. I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE, but the idea that you saw both towers successfully hit by two amateurs seems implausible to me.

I agree, the idea is much simpler than wiring a building for demolition, but in the latter scenario you'd have actual experts doing it, with nearly a year of preparation. In the former example, you only have one shot at successfully hijacking the planes, and not only that, but navigating it successfully to the desired targets.

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

I've given you the answer: PNAC

RWWilson said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.

---

Same reports that found Atta's passport in NYC?

They may have been on the plane, may have even taken them over. They weren't responsible for navigating the planes as that was done remotely. They were patsies at best.

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.

---

Same reports that found Atta's passport in NYC?

They may have been on the plane, may have even taken them over. They weren't responsible for navigating the planes as that was done remotely. They were patsies at best.

---

Remote control? Why did they even take flying lessons if the planes were going to be remote controlled? Why did one plane crash after passengers said they were storming the cockpit if it was being remotely controlled? Why go to all the extra detail if the building were going to be demolished by explosions - which the same terrorists had attempted just years before. Just blow up the buildings, kill thousands, blame Al Qaeda, and go to war. Why all the unnecessary steps of remote controlled planes, Muslim men who believed they were flying them, hijacked planes, plane manuals, lessons, etc...?

Man the government loves wiring things up. Now they managed to turn airplanes from three different airines into remote drones without the knowledge of the crews who normally worked on and flew them. You are a nutter.

Nano-thermite explosions being ejected from the building and accelerating downward greater than what gravity would explain.

JJxvi said:

---

Man the government loves wiring things up. Now they managed to turn airplanes from three different airines into remote drones without the knowledge of the crews who normally worked on and flew them. You are a nutter.

---

He is mentally ill and it isn't funny. I was making fun of him before, but now see he inability to think rationally and reason are actually signs of serious mental illness. It's not funny. It's sad. I'm out.

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.

---

Same reports that found Atta's passport in NYC?

They may have been on the plane, may have even taken them over. They weren't responsible for navigating the planes as that was done remotely. They were patsies at best.

---

Remote control? Why did they even take flying lessons if the planes were going to be remote controlled? Why did one plane crash after passengers said they were storming the cockpit if it was being remotely controlled? Why go to all the extra detail if the building were going to be demolished by explosions - which the same terrorists had attempted just years before. Just blow up the buildings, kill thousands, blame Al Qaeda, and go to war. Why all the unnecessary steps of remote controlled planes, Muslim men who believed they were flying them, hijacked planes, plane manuals, lessons, etc...?

---

They took flying lessons because they were Patsies, as I explained.

"Just blowing up" the buildings requires unfettered access to the building, which they wouldn't have.

They wanted a New Pearl Harbor, the whole event was made to be a spectacle to shock and awe the american public and the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

I have flown. It is not as easy as you claim to navigate precisely into a building a far distance away if you only have very basic training. I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE, but the idea that you saw both towers successfully hit by two amateurs seems implausible to me.

I agree, the idea is much simpler than wiring a building for demolition, but in the latter scenario you'd have actual experts doing it, with nearly a year of preparation. In the former example, you only have one shot at successfully hijacking the planes, and not only that, but navigating it successfully to the desired targets.

---

That's just the thing thought. Isn't the second plane that hits WTC-2 wobbling enough and at an angle where he damn near entirely missed it??

And the first one appears to have flown across the water with the broadside of both all that is before it -- not so hard to see.

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

As a pilot and aviation buff, I can tell you that once the plane has taken off and is in cruise, it's a piece of cake, as long as nothing breaks Anyone with reasonable coordination, eyesight, and intelligence can keep an aircraft in flight, and steer it toward an obvious quarter mile high target

And they did have flight training

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

I've given you the answer: PNAC

---

OK. I'm through. You are truly whacked out.

RWWilson said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Man the government loves wiring things up. Now they managed to turn airplanes from three different airines into remote drones without the knowledge of the crews who normally worked on and flew them. You are a nutter.

---

He is mentally ill and it isn't funny. I was making fun of him before, but now see he inability to think rationally and reason are actually signs of serious mental illness. It's not funny. It's sad. I'm out.

---

This is projecting. all you're able to do is personally attack people just because logistically it seems implausible despite the insurmountable physical evidence that's available. You can still feel free to disagree with it, but I don't think anyone who is intellectually honest thinks there's a rational, government sponsored explanation for WTC7.

Don't forget to put on your mask on the way out.

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.

---

I've given you the answer: PNAC

---

OK. I'm through. You are truly whacked out.

---

PNAC is an official think tank with official documents that spell out what a new pearl harbor would do for their objectives.

All you deniers can do is attack people. Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug.

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

---

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the question. A few follow ups - how many people would you estimate would need to be involved in something like this? Why wouldn't they do something much simpler like bombing a building vs bringing planes into the equation? Why wouldn't someone like Trump, who hates the so called deep state, etc expose it when he would clearly have that information available to him?

---

My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.

You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.

You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.

You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.

PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.

As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.

---

So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?

I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

---

If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.

---

Sorry to burst your bubble, but flying those aircraft, especially without having to take off or land, is not difficult. I used to fly the simulator when I was young and my dad was a pilot with a major carrier. You only have to program the the flight path and the plane will do most of the flying. The skill comes in takeoffs, landings, weather, communications and just having the hours in the cockpit required by regulations. This is particularly true if your flying in clear whether and have large visible landmarks to direct your flight path

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

---

If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.

---

Sorry to burst your bubble, but flying those aircraft, especially without having to take off or land, is not difficult. I used to fly the simulator when I was young and my dad was a pilot with a major carrier. You only have to program the the flight path and the plane will do most of the flying. The skill comes in takeoffs, landings, weather, communications and just having the hours in the cockpit required by regulations. This is particularly true if your flying in clear whether and have large visible landmarks to direct your flight path

---

And you think they were able to program the flight path being Saudis with no training on a 757?